GOP in the South: 3 things to know

Will Mississippi and Alabama residents give Mitt Romney his long-expected breakthrough?

With Super Tuesday not so decisive as promised by its name, the votes available to Republican candidates today are as vital as any before them. The 90 delegates offered by the Deep South states Alabama and Mississippi -- plus 20 from the liberal Pacific island of Hawaii -- could deliver a sizable boost to the Mitt Romney campaign. But this is the conservative heartland; so what for Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich?

1) Mitt: Southern man, ya'll?

Despite Romney's remark last week that the states were "a bit of an away game" for him, Alabama and Mississippi's delegates are very much in play for the frontrunner. Romney's health in the polls, though, may or may not have something to do with the vote-hustling techniques he's practiced in recent days:

 

2) The Dixie Vote's worth to Santorum/Gingrich

Polling Monday showed Romney and Gingrich neck-in-neck, with any leads within the margin of error. This resurgence for Newt complicates matters for Santorum: if Romney is to be denied the nomination, a clear second candidate should already be gathering momentum with US demographics other than those they've previously relied on. Yet since his two-week charge in February, the Santorum campaign has stalled. And now if he can't take the southern heartland, notable for its evangelical population and social conservativism, Rick looks unlikely to be man the GOP want. A win for Gingrich, meanwhile, would hardly clarify the race.

3) Obama, Rush and Darwin in the South

Some of the most interesting figures from two new polls by PPP are unrelated to the Republican candidates, such as those demonstrating the continued damage to the Rush Limbaugh brand and the views of Dixie Americans on interracial marriage.

One poll of note, though, does tell us something about the electorate drawn to each GOP candidate: in Mississippi, Gingrich is far ahead with the "Obama is a Muslim" voters, while in both states the comparatively more enlightened Republicans who believe "Obama is a Christian" are largely backing Romney. Just how enlightened they are is another question; only 26 per cent of Republican Alabamans and fewer Mississippians (22 per cent) believe in evolution. And who wins the votes of those who don't? That's largely Rick.

Alice Gribbin is a Teaching-Writing Fellow at the Iowa Writers' Workshop. She was formerly the editorial assistant at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.